Legal Opinion

Remsen v. Hay

New York Court of Chancery

Decided November 10, 1835PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The principal object of the bill in this cause was to reach a supposed interest of the defendants Charles Hay and Elizabeth his wife in certain leasehold premises standing in the names of the defendant William Scott and one William Legget (not a party); and to have it applied in payment of a judgment which the complainants had recovered against the defendant, Charles Hay, for a debt or demand contracted with them by his wife.

Read the full summary

The principal object of the bill in this cause was to reach a supposed interest of the defendants Charles Hay and Elizabeth his wife in certain leasehold premises standing in the names of the defendant William Scott and one William Legget (not a party); and to have it applied in payment of a judgment which the complainants had recovered against the defendant, Charles Hay, for a debt or demand contracted with them by his wife. The cause was heard upon the bill and an answer of the defendant William Scott—as to the defendants, Hay and wife, it had been taken as confessed. The bill set forth…

1Opinion of the Court

The Vice-Chancellor:

The bill proceeds mainly upon the ground of Scott and Legget’s holding a lease, by way •of mortgage or security, for a debt due to them ; and that there is an equity of redemption or some interest remaining in Hay and wife or in one of them, which renders the property liable to be sold and the proceeds, after satisfying Scott and Legget’s debt, subject, inequity, to the complainants judgment.

The question then is : whether Scott and Legget stand as mortgagees or as the absolute and Iona fide owners of the leasehold premises.

The answer is positive in denying that the…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. MacAuley v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  2. Wilson v. CarpenterIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Green v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  4. Haynes v. RosenfieldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  5. Savings & Loan Soc. v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API